IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

"MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com> Fri, 28 November 2014 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mmudigon@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C891A1B39 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2RNLurAySUT for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923391A1B07 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 03:53:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4181; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417175602; x=1418385202; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=SL7zeuhWhz/WwDcwnYowMMAmgKY+fezDMY/M/5BwGTA=; b=iSR8Xh4tbDiHfTVKtaBPwW0JmXTOQUzDQlqishHoZdjvF6ZI08AC6Lwt 25kkj/ZWLJwimY4W0CvUGTIiXIZzM4KyyUmzusfXRayd6lntY0yDe/8+i R+4MURipQEeKCXCwgSf/V3dLhNROFcluETFJHGsFagsbsLRunXOopoMAx Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAPdgeFStJA2L/2dsb2JhbABbgkJEgS3FFIh1AoEMFgEBAQEBfYQCAQIEgQsBCAQNAwECKCYTFAkIAgQBEohA0hwBAQEBAQUBAQEBAQEckGoYAoRLBZA5giwFjBeXHIN8b4FIgQIBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,476,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="100881411"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2014 11:53:21 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sASBrKQM015066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:53:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.81]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:53:20 -0600
From: "MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon)" <mmudigon@cisco.com>
To: "Fan, Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Topic: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91
Thread-Index: AQHQCQ6sKG4KnHULdkO3SoZYWD6QxJxy3ruAgAAfxICAAAeWAIAAjSQAgAD7mQCAAEe3gIABbj+AgABtsgA=
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:53:20 +0000
Message-ID: <D09E5FAC.27C51%mmudigon@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <007701d00af9$28719050$7954b0f0$@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.50.65]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D09E5FAC27C51mmudigonciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/TvxTPvvMjM_dNsYa4vdv4tsBsCA
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:53:23 -0000

Hi Peng,

If the BFD packets are lost, doesn’t the BFD session go DOWN? Are you saying that packet loss is not big enough to make BFD session go DOWN?

Thanks

Regards
Mallik

From: <Fan>, Peng <fanpeng@chinamobile.com<mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com>>
Date: Friday, 28 November 2014 4:20 pm
To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: BFD stability follow-up from IETF-91

Hi Jeff, all,

I have been following this stability extension from the beginning, and as an
operator I would like to express that this draft enables the "advanced
feature" we desire for BFD to provide additional useful information that
helps operators understand network issues. A relevant use case is detecting
lossy or "quasi-disconnected" links or member LAG links. An example of such
situation we experienced was a loosely connected fiber link resulting in
continuous, small amount of packet loss. BFD could get the information of
lost BFD frames on such unstable link, and probably report when a target
level is reached, say a certain number of frames are lost over a period or
among a total number of frames.

Best regards,
Peng

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email